The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The court below sentenced a conviction on the part of the defendant's case, and dismissed the prosecutor's request on the part of the case for which the request for attachment order was made, and sentenced a probation order on the defendant ex officio pursuant to Article 21-3 (2) of the former Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (amended by Act No. 16923, Feb. 4, 2020; hereinafter "Electronic Monitoring Act").

Since only the defendant appealed against this, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the case of attachment order does not have a benefit of appeal.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Electronic Monitoring Act, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court. The scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the judgment below

2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with labor for not more than 10 months) that the court below sentenced is too unreasonable, and it is unreasonable to order probation ex officio, even though there is no risk of recidivism.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, one sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and a discretionary judgment is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first instance sentencing judgment is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing as shown in the process of the first instance sentencing hearing and the sentencing criteria, or it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing judgment as it is, comprehensively taking account of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing.